Author Topic: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case  (Read 99389 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline carlymichelle

Re: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case
« Reply #120 on: February 08, 2016, 07:03:47 PM »
Cliche, after cliche, after cliche.

You can't find evidence if none exists, can you alfred ?

As to justice, this case shows no signs of being solved.

...and your idea of 'justice'  is keeping the mccanns out of the firing line.

As to the last sentence, let's try and make it simple.

THESE THREADS WOULD NOT EXIST, BUT FOR THE MCCANNS ACTIONS. 8)-)))

 8@??)(

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case
« Reply #121 on: February 08, 2016, 07:06:13 PM »
I understand sarcasm but I didn't understand what your comment under mine was meant to communicate.  It was a non sequitur as so many of your replies to my posts seem to be.

You know perfectly well what I am referring to, but you can't cut a logical response.

You and ferryman enjoyed a quip about pigs, but perhaps David Cameron would  be the best person to ask questions on that.  8((()*/

Offline G-Unit

Re: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case
« Reply #122 on: February 08, 2016, 07:19:47 PM »
What, again???!  But if you insist...

 “Neither her parents or any of the members of the group that were with her are either persons of interest or suspects" - Andy Redwood.

There's nothing there about anyone being 'ruled out'. Ruling someone out is a permanent state of affairs, they have been exonerated, eliminated. The police have been known to make statements such as Redwood's and then change their minds later.

Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline G-Unit

Re: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case
« Reply #123 on: February 08, 2016, 07:31:28 PM »

The sceptics claim to support free speech... But will not want this post to stay on the thread

I support free speech, even when it's meaningless rubbish. I care not a jot if your post stays or goes, let those who read be the judges.

Have you found that evidence yet which sceptics are allegedly too dim to understand?

« Last Edit: February 08, 2016, 07:32:11 PM by Slartibartfast »
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline jassi

Re: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case
« Reply #124 on: February 08, 2016, 07:35:53 PM »
I support free speech, even when it's meaningless rubbish. I care not a jot if your post stays or goes, let those who read be the judges.

Have you found that evidence yet which sceptics are allegedly too dim to understand?

 8@??)( 8@??)(
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -

OG have been pushed out by the Germans who have reserved all the deck chairs for the foreseeable future

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case
« Reply #125 on: February 08, 2016, 07:40:32 PM »
There's nothing there about anyone being 'ruled out'. Ruling someone out is a permanent state of affairs, they have been exonerated, eliminated. The police have been known to make statements such as Redwood's and then change their minds later.

Analysis of the files supports Redwood's position.

The only thing that (conceivably) might change it is new (hitherto, to us), unknown evidence.

Can't entirely rule that out.

But speculation that will happen is just idle tittle-tattle.

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case
« Reply #126 on: February 08, 2016, 07:45:48 PM »
Analysis of the files supports Redwood's position.

The only thing that (conceivably) might change it is new (hitherto, to us), unknown evidence.

Can't entirely rule that out.

But speculation that will happen is just idle tittle-tattle.

I'll give you 1/10 for trying it on.

There is no evidence, let alone forensic indications to show an abduction occurred.

Offline G-Unit

Re: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case
« Reply #127 on: February 08, 2016, 07:55:20 PM »
Analysis of the files supports Redwood's position.

The only thing that (conceivably) might change it is new (hitherto, to us), unknown evidence.

Can't entirely rule that out.

But speculation that will happen is just idle tittle-tattle.

Really? Would that be your analysis? Do tell us more.

Let's not forget Redwood's other pronouncement;

 there was a possibility that she had not left her family's holiday apartment alive when she disappeared in May 2007.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/19/madeleine-mccann-police-intruder-girls-algarve

Now why would he say that when there's allegedly no evidence to suggest a death in G5A?
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case
« Reply #128 on: February 08, 2016, 07:58:53 PM »
Really? Would that be your analysis? Do tell us more.

Let's not forget Redwood's other pronouncement;

 there was a possibility that she had not left her family's holiday apartment alive when she disappeared in May 2007.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/19/madeleine-mccann-police-intruder-girls-algarve

Now why would he say that when there's allegedly no evidence to suggest a death in G5A?

Burglaries of villas.

Do keep up.

Offline carlymichelle

Re: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case
« Reply #129 on: February 08, 2016, 08:01:03 PM »
has  any mcann supporter posted  an answer to the orginal question?

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case
« Reply #130 on: February 08, 2016, 08:04:50 PM »
Burglaries of villas.

Do keep up.

Straw clutching, yet again.

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case
« Reply #131 on: February 08, 2016, 08:06:17 PM »
Really? Would that be your analysis? Do tell us more.

Let's not forget Redwood's other pronouncement;

 there was a possibility that she had not left her family's holiday apartment alive when she disappeared in May 2007.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/19/madeleine-mccann-police-intruder-girls-algarve

Now why would he say that when there's allegedly no evidence to suggest a death in G5A?

Don't expect a logical reply anytime soon.

Offline misty

Re: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case
« Reply #132 on: February 08, 2016, 08:07:25 PM »
has  any mcann supporter posted  an answer to the orginal question?

Perhaps there are only Madeleine & justice supporters on this forum, Carly.

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case
« Reply #133 on: February 08, 2016, 08:12:46 PM »
Perhaps there are only Madeleine & justice supporters on this forum, Carly.

You mean mccann supporters, not Madeleine supporters. 8)-)))


Offline misty

Re: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case
« Reply #134 on: February 08, 2016, 08:15:26 PM »
You mean mccann supporters, not Madeleine supporters. 8)-)))

No, Stephen. Read my answer again & comprehend.